67 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,955 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
518 U.S. 415 (1996) Cited 2,313 times
Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
531 U.S. 497 (2001) Cited 1,357 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "claim-preclusive effect" of a previous decision by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by "the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits"
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
527 U.S. 815 (1999) Cited 931 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"
Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) Cited 3,174 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Schiavone v. Fortune
477 U.S. 21 (1986) Cited 755 times
Holding that in order to relate back "the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading"
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.
434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,060 times
Holding the preclusive effect of a dismissal for lack of standing "is one of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) rather than claim preclusion (res judicata)"
In the Matter of Hunter
4 N.Y.3d 260 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 527 times
Concluding that res judicata barred petitioner's claim against executor of estate where prior Surrogate's Court's decree had released executor from all further liability as to matters embraced in the decree, including petitioner's claim
Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree
326 U.S. 438 (1946) Cited 513 times
Holding that to ascertain the meaning of the Federal Rules, the construction given to them by the Committee is “of weight”
Police & Fire Retirement System v. IndyMac MBS, Inc.
721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 148 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that proposed intervenors could not use the "relation back" doctrine to assert claims previously raised by lead plaintiffs and dismissed for lack of standing
Rule 13 - Counterclaim and Crossclaim
Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 Cited 4,920 times 21 Legal Analyses
Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory
Section 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 2283 Cited 4,041 times 18 Legal Analyses
Restricting power of federal courts to enjoin state-court proceedings
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,804 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Paramount Pictures Corporation, Appellant,v.Allianz Risk Transfer AG, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

67 Cited authorities

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Holding that the "claim-preclusive effect" of a previous decision by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by "the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits"

Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"

Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

Holding that in order to relate back "the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading"

Holding the preclusive effect of a dismissal for lack of standing "is one of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) rather than claim preclusion (res judicata)"

Concluding that res judicata barred petitioner's claim against executor of estate where prior Surrogate's Court's decree had released executor from all further liability as to matters embraced in the decree, including petitioner's claim

Holding that to ascertain the meaning of the Federal Rules, the construction given to them by the Committee is “of weight”

Holding that proposed intervenors could not use the "relation back" doctrine to assert claims previously raised by lead plaintiffs and dismissed for lack of standing

Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory

Restricting power of federal courts to enjoin state-court proceedings

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases